Waterbird Responses to Hydrological Management of Wetlands Reserve Program Habitats in New York
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) has restored nearly 600,000 ha of wetlands in the United States since inception of the program in 1996. However, no research has evaluated postrestoration management of WRP wetlands in relation to waterfowl and waterbird use. Therefore, we conducted an experiment to compare waterfowl and waterbird abundance and diversity between hydrologically managed (i.e., spring-summer drawdown for vegetation regeneration) and nonmanaged WRP wetlands in central New York, USA, in 2004. We surveyed waterfowl and other waterbirds on 5 managed and 5 nonmanaged wetlands over 3 10-week periods (i.e., spring: 7 Mar-15 May; summer: 16 May-24 Jul; autumn: 25 Jul-30 Sep). We detected a total of 36 taxa of these birds across the 3 periods and both types of wetlands but observed 1.4–2.3 times more taxa on managed than on nonmanaged wetlands among periods. Additionally, we recorded 0.8–13.2 times greater relative abundances (n birds/ha of wetland) of waterfowl and other waterbirds on managed than on nonmanaged wetlands during spring through autumn. We recommend regular postrestoration hydrological management of WRP wetlands to regenerate moist-soil and other emergent plants and promote waterfowl and waterbird use of these restored habitats.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".